When I look at a couple of teams I wonder why they are ranked as high as they are but then I look at those ranked below them and don't see anyone clearly better.

The only problem I have with these preseason polls is that several of these teams will play a bunch of cupcakes at home, go 8-0 while several teams that start out outside the top 25 have a hard time getting votes despite playing tougher schedules.

I agree placing UConn ahead of S. Carolina but if you go according to speculation, not what happened last season, how could anyone say Washington is ranked tied for #25 when they have nothing.

Agree. Washington was picked last by at least 9 of 11 coaches in the Pac 12 coaches poll. Maybe some of those Eastern coaches didn't realize that Kelsey Plum graduated (as did Osahor, Collier and Corral). I suspect this will be corrected when they lose to BYU, Ohio St., Creighton and Texas in their first 5 games.

On the other hand this means that 6 Pac 12 teams are in the top 25, more than any other conference. There are 5 from the ACC, 4 each from the SEC and Big 12, 3 from the Big 10 and 2 each from the Big East and AAC.

On the other hand this means that 6 Pac 12 teams are in the top 25, more than any other conference. There are 5 from the ACC, 4 each from the SEC and Big 12, 3 from the Big 10 and 2 each from the Big East and AAC.

Washington at #25 is really hilarious. They are struggling to even put five players on the court. Their PG looks like it will be a senior walk on who has never played in a game!

Anyway, bearman I sent you a PM.

_________________“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou

The coaches picking Washington so high validates my opinion that they seem to know less than most WCBB fans who follow the game. Makes sense because coaches other than their league and the teams they play in preseason I doubt they even have the time to follow other teams. They are probably at the same level as non sport news people in respect to knowledge about WCBB.

On the other hand this means that 6 Pac 12 teams are in the top 25, more than any other conference. There are 5 from the ACC, 4 each from the SEC and Big 12, 3 from the Big 10 and 2 each from the Big East and AAC.

Washington at #25 is really hilarious. They are struggling to even put five players on the court. Their PG looks like it will be a senior walk on who has never played in a game!.

summertime blues wrote:

Washington is really going to be hurting now that they've lost Natalie Romeo for an unknown length of time due to an "undisclosed injury".

Anyone who voted for UW is pretty clueless. If the season started today, we might have just one player available off the bench and we'd likely be starting two former walk-ons. Coach Wynn was a bit mistaken when she spoke about Moser's experience--Moser has played some minutes, but I doubt if any came in a game when the outcome had not yet been decided. Moser is not just a former walk-on; she's a former practice player who was promoted to the real team halfway through the 2015-2016 season.

UW has labeled Romeo's absence as "due to medical reasons." Wynn was pretty deliberate in providing no other information, citing HIPAA regulations. She gave at least a bit of information regarding all of the other players who have missed practices due to injuries, as well as information on the two players who had took medical retirements. This is pure speculation, but based on the lack of information, it seems likely that her absence is not a basketball-related injury. Whatever it is, I just wish her the best.

I have high hopes for this new coaching staff...but Husky fans are going to have to be patient. It may take a few years.

I'm really not a fan of the Mid-Major poll. Maybe they should only put FCS teams in the Top 25 poll, only FBS teams in the Mid-Major Top 25 poll and then non-football schools in the Low-Major Top 25 poll.

I'm really not a fan of the Mid-Major poll. Maybe they should only put FCS teams in the Top 25 poll, only FBS teams in the Mid-Major Top 25 poll and then non-football schools in the Low-Major Top 25 poll.

Wel, since we can't get any love, let alone any NOTICE, from the vote casters, it seems only fair.....

_________________Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom

And 6-5 Stanford, with no wins over a Power 5 team, coming off of a home loss to Western Illinois is still ranked.

No one ever gets to complain about East Coast bias again.

You actually don't get it. The whole point is that many things that happen on the West Coast are completely missed by the rest of the country. Often that means that West Coast teams are overlooked as they are playing some excellent basketball. Last night it meant that a game happened and some voters didn't bother to find out what happened before they put in their ballots. That is the same East Coast bias that just had a different effect.

I was the first one to comment about Stanford still being ranked and it didn't surprise me. But yes, that is absolutely the same East Coast Bias that says that nothing that happens after 11pm eastern is worthy of consideration.

The coaches poll makes a lot more sense than the media. Seems as though they are paying attention.

Looking at the two polls I assume this comment is directed at positions 20-25, so let's compare the major differences:

Oklahoma St is ranked 20 in the AP but only 23 by the Coaches. OSU has lost twice, to #7 Tennessee and to #5/3 Mississipppi St. They have a win over UCLA. They played a very weak schedule otherwise, so they do not have a decent road win, but the loss to MSU was on the road and they lost by only 3.

California is ranked 23 in the AP but unranked by the Coaches. Cal's 3 losses are to #1 UConn, #14 UCLA and #15 Missouri. Cal won at Kentucky and beat USC and St Mary's.

Stanford is ranked 24 in the AP but unranked by the Coaches. Stanford is 8-6, but 5 of those losses are to top 10 teams, including one overtime loss. The one other loss was to Western Illinois when two of their top players were out injured. Stanford just beat #14 UCLA. they have a neutral court victory over Belmont. (And of note, Stanford played only 5 non-conference home games while playing 4 neutral site and 3 road games)

Arizona St is ranked 25 in the AP but unranked by the Coaches. ASU lost at #11/12 Florida St and neutral site games vs #5/3 Mississippi St and Green Bay. ASU has beaten Buffalo and beat both Colorado and Utah on the road in the past week.

Michigan is ranked 22 in the AP but is up at 20 in the Coaches poll. Michigan lost to #2 Notre Dame, #5 Louisville, and #18 Iowa. Their best win is over Marquette. Their best road win is over Ohio, which was one of only 4 non-conference games they played away from Ann Arbor. Their longest road trip was to Long Island.

South Florida is unranked by the AP but is #22 in the Coaches. USF has lost to #2 Notre Dame, Michigan St and Oklahoma. Their best wins are over LSU and St John's. They played all but 4 of their games in Florida and in those games they lost two and had a 5 point win at George Washington and a 6 point win at a neutral site over Dayton.

Green Bay is unranked by the AP but is ranked 24 in the Coaches. Green Bay has lost two games, to #5/3 Mississippi St and last week to Northern Kentucky, who had previously had only 1 Division 1 win. Green Bay has several good wins including a neutral site win over Arizona St, home wins over South Dakota St and Marquette, and a road win over Dayton.

Rutgers is unranked by the AP but is ranked 25 in the Coaches. Rutgers has lost to #4/5 South Carolina and to Washington St. RU won at Michigan St this past weekend, its best win and first game played in a non- East Coast state. Its other good win is over North Carolina State. To their credit, while Rutgers has only played 1 ranked team nearly every team on their schedule has been credible.

As I look at the resumes the AP seems to have it a little more right than the coaches. Oklahoma St has a thin resume, but a team that has lost to 2 top 10 teams, beaten a top 15 team and won every other game seems deserving a top 20 ranking. Among the teams ranked only by the Coaches, South Florida and Green Bay both lost to under .500 teams; Rutgers lost to a .500 team. The three teams ranked by the AP have only two losses to unranked teams, Stanford's loss to Western Illinois and ASU's loss to Green Bay. Stanford's loss is canceled out by their win over a ranked UCLA team. None of the other teams have a win over a ranked team. The difference is that the AP teams have played tougher schedules and, with the exception of Green Bay, have traveled much more.

At least the coaches don't have Stanford ranked. Happy to see Rutgers in the top 25.

That was pretty much it. I didn't bother reading that big long post above. It was as simple as this.

Rutgers LOST to a Pac 12 team, and not a good one. Washington St traveled all the way across the country and beat Rutgers in Florida. Washington St is 7-7 overall, 0-2 in the Pac 12. So exactly who is it that Rutgers has beat that makes up for that loss and merits them being ranked?

At least the coaches don't have Stanford ranked. Happy to see Rutgers in the top 25.

That was pretty much it. I didn't bother reading that big long post above. It was as simple as this.

Rutgers LOST to a Pac 12 team, and not a good one. Washington St traveled all the way across the country and beat Rutgers in Florida. Washington St is 7-7 overall, 0-2 in the Pac 12. So exactly who is it that Rutgers has beat that makes up for that loss and merits them being ranked?

Rutgers - #6 RPI, #8 strength of schedule, 14-2 record, 8 Top 100 wins thus far. You're right though, I'm not sure how that warrants Top 25 consideration. My bad and thank you for pointing out the error of my thoughts.

I'll help you out. These are Rutgers top wins: NC St, Houston, @Michigan St, Princeton, Purdue, Virginia, Western Michigan (neutral), Penn St, Seton Hall. NC St has 2 votes on AP and 3 votes on Coaches and Virginia has 1 vote on Coaches; those are the only teams getting votes, and both of those games were at home.

Oregon St (11-2) is #75 in the RPI which would put them 9th in the Pac 12 while Washington St (7-7), even after losing to OSU, is 43, 5th in the Pac12. That is why I would never use the RPI as the primary argument for ranking a team.

At least the coaches don't have Stanford ranked. Happy to see Rutgers in the top 25.

That was pretty much it. I didn't bother reading that big long post above. It was as simple as this.

Rutgers LOST to a Pac 12 team, and not a good one. Washington St traveled all the way across the country and beat Rutgers in Florida. Washington St is 7-7 overall, 0-2 in the Pac 12. So exactly who is it that Rutgers has beat that makes up for that loss and merits them being ranked?

To be real honest I don't think Cviv was all that concerned about winning that game. It's the only game where she used an entirely different starting lineup, and if I remember correctly her sub rotations hinted to her experimenting. Plus the fact that Tyler Scaife only played 20 minutes in the game.

Not saying it's the reason we lost, because we shouldn't have lost. I'm just stating the factors that played into us losing that game.

That is a ridiculous statement. No, a win doesn't "cancel out" a bad loss. The NCAA doesn't look at it that way and I have no idea why you would. That just doesn't make sense.

calbearman76 wrote:

That is why I would never use the RPI as the primary argument for ranking a team.

I don't recall ever saying that was the primary reason. I listed multiple reasons if I remember right. I am not a huge fan of the RPI either, however, my thoughts on it don't really matter as it still a tool that the NCAA continues to use when putting together the bracket, so it cannot be ignored just because you don't like it. I would also say that the actual polls, which you so fervently try to defend, themselves are probably worse than the RPI lol. I mean, seriously.

At any rate, you tell me which 3 of the following resumes should be the last 3 in the Top 25 polls

#1 - 14-2 record, #6 strength of schedule, 7 Top 100 wins (4 Top 50), 2 losses were to #11 & #43, only played 1 game vs a team outside the top 200, no bad losses

I put this together this way as these are a lot of the criteria that the NCAA is going to look at come late February/early March. There is no need to list wins/losses at home/on the road as those calculations are already included inside the RPI rank of teams.

Anyway, you be the judge.

Also, I know you hyped up Cal's win over Kentucky, but they are currently #91 in the RPI with an 8-7 record (4 of those wins over teams 300+ in the RPI) and losers of 6 straight games.

I honestly have no idea why I spent so much time on this as I hate the polls. Oh well...

To be real honest I don't think Cviv was all that concerned about winning that game. It's the only game where she used an entirely different starting lineup, and if I remember correctly her sub rotations hinted to her experimenting. Plus the fact that Tyler Scaife only played 20 minutes in the game.

Not saying it's the reason we lost, because we shouldn't have lost. I'm just stating the factors that played into us losing that game.

Let's be clear, Tyler Scaife played 20 minutes vs. an average of 26 minutes for the season. Rutgers played a different starting lineup for the first 6 minutes of the game, with Scaife sitting. During those 6 minutes Rutgers trailed 11-10. In the final 8 minutes of the game (with Rutgers down 1) Scaife played all but 50 seconds. She also missed two layups in the final 2:15 and committed an offensive foul in the final 10 seconds. And she was the leading scorer for Rutgers.

purduefanatic wrote:

calbearman76 wrote:

Quote:

Stanford's loss is canceled out by their win over a ranked UCLA team.

That is a ridiculous statement. No, a win doesn't "cancel out" a bad loss. The NCAA doesn't look at it that way and I have no idea why you would. That just doesn't make sense.

Actually that is exactly what the RPI does. And as for the NCAA, they put more value on the good win than the bad loss.

Quote:

I don't recall ever saying that (the RPI) was the primary reason. I listed multiple reasons if I remember right.

Your entire argument is based on the RPI, not just the RPI of Rutgers but the RPI of the other teams. By not mentioning the individual teams you allow the win over Houston to seem like a good win. Houston has not beaten an RPI top 100 team and they lost to Boston College, but they are #36 in the RPI. Washington St is currently a top 50 RPI team, Neither team will be top 50 by the end of the season, and at least one may not even be in the top 100.

As for your question on which resume looks better, I'd say there isn't enough information to know. Rutgers has traditionally scheduled tougher, but this season their non-conference schedule was primarily a bunch of so-so teams. South Carolina was the only top tier team, and they lost. The other good team they played was NC St in the Big 10 - ACC challenge, a game CViv didn't control. The schedule wound up being somewhat weaker than expected because James Madison and Temple, the opening two road games, are both down this season. But then, other than a road game at Charlotte and the trip to Florida where they lost 2 of 3 games, they played 7 consecutive home games. And after NC St none of are a caliber that they will get an at large bid (Princeton should win the Ivy and Virginia has a very outside shot.)

Having said all of this, I am impressed with Rutgers, and I was particularly impressed with their win over Michigan St. I wouldn't have ranked them before then, but with the win their resume becomes much better. They are one of the top 30 teams in the country and have no problem with them being in the top 25, although I think if they played each of the 3 Pac 12 teams on a neutral site they would do no better than 1-2. I believe they are far more worthy than South Florida who is ranked #22.

But I don't understand the vitriol for the Pac 12. As a Purdue fan, your team lost twice to them. Indeed the Pac 12 had 7 games with the Big 10 this season and the Pac 12 was 4-3. All three wins were by Ohio St. (over Stanford twice and Washington) Purdue lost twice (Utah and USC) Rutgers and Nebraska lost to Washington St. The Pac 12 was home for one game (Purdue-Utah) while the Big 10 was home for 3 and 3 were neutral site. Overall the Big 10 teams are their top teams or their middle teams while, with the exception of Stanford, the Pac 12 reps are all from the bottom half. It seems that running down the Pac 12 indirectly runs down the Big 10.

Oregon St (11-2) is #75 in the RPI which would put them 9th in the Pac 12 while Washington St (7-7), even after losing to OSU, is 43, 5th in the Pac12. That is why I would never use the RPI as the primary argument for ranking a team.

It's still far too early in the season to even bother looking at RPI. You and I both know that, by the end of the regular season, the above numbers will be quite different, and will almost certainly be more closely-aligned with yours and my expectations.

Houston has not beaten an RPI top 100 team and they lost to Boston College, but they are #36 in the RPI.

As for your question on which resume looks better, I'd say there isn't enough information to know.

Who are you to say the win over Houston isn't a quality win? The fact is that according to the metric the NCAA uses, it is. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks. Now, will it be when the tourney rolls around, who knows? But for now, that is a Top 50 no matter how much it upsets you that it gets counted that way.

You can certainly compare the 4 resumes listed against each other. I understand you not wanting to, but there most certainly is plenty of information included to compare teams based on face value.

calbearman76 wrote:

They are one of the top 30 teams in the country and have no problem with them being in the top 25, although I think if they played each of the 3 Pac 12 teams on a neutral site they would do no better than 1-2.

So, there isn't enough info above to compare 4 resumes but you have enough info to infer that Rutgers would lose to 2 of 3 games vs those Pac-12 teams IF they played??? I hate when people try to make these kind of statements because it is nothing but conjecture and means nothing and based on no kind of fact whatsoever.

calbearman76 wrote:

I don't understand the vitriol for the Pac 12. As a Purdue fan, your team lost twice to them. Indeed the Pac 12 had 7 games with the Big 10 this season and the Pac 12 was 4-3. All three wins were by Ohio St. (over Stanford twice and Washington) Purdue lost twice (Utah and USC) Rutgers and Nebraska lost to Washington St. The Pac 12 was home for one game (Purdue-Utah) while the Big 10 was home for 3 and 3 were neutral site. Overall the Big 10 teams are their top teams or their middle teams while, with the exception of Stanford, the Pac 12 reps are all from the bottom half. It seems that running down the Pac 12 indirectly runs down the Big 10.

I don't have vitriol towards the Pac-12. I have just gotten tired of people trying to convince the readers on here how great that league is. It's decent, but come on. And Purdue is just a shell of what it used to be. I'm surprised they haven't lost more games to be honest.

And lastly, I'm not trying to overhype the Big Ten. I could care less. It's not very good right now and I would be shocked if there was a rep in the Elite 8 and maybe no one gets to the second weekend.

As an RU fan I thought the bigger impediment to them being ranked wasn't the WSU loss (though that didn't help) but the lack of a marquee win. Obviously, the coaches were impressed with the road win at MSU to put them in the last spot.

That being said, you get into the late stages of the top 25, and there are A LOT of teams without a top 25 win yet, including:

Even if these coaches actually do the voting, are we to believe that they actually take the time from their own teams, their conferences and their family time to watch lots, or any, of the top 25 teams on TV. My bet would be that almost none of them are the avid cellar experts that we on RebKell are.

Moreover, I think it's doubtful that most of these coaches even vote. They probably delegate the job to the SID, who might further delegate it to the water girl.

In righteous conclusion, the coaches poll is simply a third world product, slap-dashed together by the water girls of a lot of schools who have never even seen a top 25 team.

Still, it's probably better for most of the season than "RPI's" that are slap-dashed together via computer algorithms concocted by unknown . . . etc.

Look at who the voting coaches are. Hardly any are from a team or even a conference that is likely to have a team in the top 25.

They take one coach from each conference.

Credibility? Compared to what?

Good point. There aren't many people who pay serious attention to women's college basketball as a whole. There are fans of teams and regions; there are sportswriters who cover particular teams; there are coaches who know their team and league. But very few people really delve into the 15-30 range of college teams, and have a justifiable opinion about their ranking.